Here's the most amazing thing: seniors now say they oppose, not favor, the part of the law that should be most popular among them: the new prescription drug benefit. In early December, they narrowly favored it, 46-39. But now, four months later, they say they oppose it, 48-36.

The Gallup analysis also finds that only 26 percent of seniors believe the new law will actually help seniors with their prescription drugs situation, rather than hurt it or have no effect. And only 14 percent of seniors think the bill will help make the Medicare system more financially secure.

Read 'em and weep, Karl.

Note: With this post, I'm off on Spring Break 'til Wednesday. Back with analysis of the latest polling data and other thoughts then.

Comments

iF ANY USE THIS POLL IN PERSUATION OF ONE NOT ALREADY IN THE CHOIRE, DON'T. dON'T SO THAT A DIALOG OF MUTUAL SEARCHING OF AN ISSUE IS SHARED. sHARED SO AS TO JOIN IN COMMON GROUND. fOR IN THE MEDICARE PLAN THE ULTIMATE PRINCIPLES OF THE GOP ARE PLAYED OUT. bUSH IS A MEDIOCRE ARISTOCRATE IN THE PARACITICAL CRONI CAPITALIST aYN RAND VAIN. tHE RELIGIOUS RIGHT USES THE LORDS NAME IN VAIN.

The reason for seniors' disenchantment is unclear, but the Gallup responses (and simple logic) suggest that seniors think that perscription drug relief should be more generous. Kerry's predicament is that even the current modest program -- conservative price tag $530 billion -- will be tough to fund. A popular alternative is to force drug companies to sell their products in the US for the prices charged in Canada (presumably what Kerry means by "fighting the big drug companies.") But it would be naive to hope that the druggies will not react by cutting expenditures on research and development, especially R&D of drugs that only a small percentage of patients will buy. If we compel the drug companies to charge Wal-Mart prices, we should not expect them to provide Sacks Fith Avenue merchandise. Of course, Congress could follow up with legislation the *encourage* R&D, with tax incentives. In my semi-education opinion, such an approach would (1) cost taxpayers more in the end than simply having the government pay the durg companies the market price for their goods; or (2) be ineffective in fostering R&D at the current robust levels; or (3) both. The old political game -- chisel lots of people out of small amounts of money, hoping they don't notice, and use the proceeds to give a highly publicised free lunch to whoever you are pandering to this month. (Note -- I am well aware that the R's do this as often as the D's).

It is very simple. I can get health insurance through my employer when I retire (OK I bear the full cost). It includes pharmaceutical insurance. If this idiocy comes into force I can kiss it goodbye and welcome a half assed scheme that will cost more for less coverage.

Basically the HMOs will force anyone covered by this Medidon'tcare idiocy out of their plan and onto George's.